Judge bans free speech for convicted activist.

All I can say about the case is what's in the title, due to ATS policy.

Suffice it to say, some guy who wants to change some laws was caught breaking one of the laws he wants changed. As a result, he was sentenced to 1
year in prison and then banned from having a "public role" in law reform advocacy.

To me, this seems a little over the top. Is it okay for a judge to take away the first amendment rights of people, ever? Once they start taking away
free speech, what do we have left to talk about?

At a guess someone who advocates legalizing pot use or something similar got caught smoking / selling pot, got put away for a year and was barred from
taking part in the local law reform that may or may not be happening officially on a local level as part of his sentance / due to having a criminal
record and standing state legislation that may or may not have been abused.

Is their legislation in your area which prevents convicted criminals on working in the area of law and what way are they written / applied.

With the information your provided its a bit hard to give a view of the situation, personally it just looks like you want to bitch about the boards
T&C, you've replied to the posts multiple times now you could have at least given the names of the people involved so we could go look off site for
what you where talking about (though that may also be a T&C violiation, but hey thats ATS)

Even if I could link to the story in full, I wouldn't want to hear peoples opinions on the laws themselves, but rather the judges actions. I think
that's what's important here.

Just make up your own reasons for why he might be in jail, and then ask yourself "as part of his penalty, should he be banned from having a public
opinion on United States political issues?" I think the answer to that is a definite no. It doesn't matter to me what he's convicted of, just that
a judge can ban someone from entering into public discourse. That's very Orwellian.

Dont know where you are, or where the defendants are in this case, we dont all have the same laws.

Very simply does that area have legislation pre-existing this trial which states that convicted criminals cannot take part in the law creation /
defining process.

It would seem like a reasonable safe guard to have put in place to me given that you dont want criminals coming out of jail and then rewriting the
laws over murder or crack.

The person in question however clearly already knew the legal system in that area wasnt perfect, sure legal systems around the world generally arent,
but we cant really discuss this case without knowing what the actual case is.

This is in America, and criminals can't rewrite laws. Only congress gets to do that.

Also, it doesn't matter which state this happened in, as the United States Constitution (Which trumps state law) guarantees in the first amendment
freedom of speech and religion, which is usually afforded to even the most violent criminals.

I know he was found guilty in a court of law, but is that sufficient to take away freedom of speech? Even if it is, is this a good thing?

I find it very hard to believe that he isnt allowed to, for example, write a blog or say be a journalist for a magazine on the subject, but its quite
likely that hes not allowed to be part of any group that works at having the law changed, be it lobbyist group or an actual part of the legal
process.

Again its difficult to know what the case is without know what the case is.

I agree with the OP. It doesnt seem to matter what he did IMO it's the fact his rights were taken away. Nobody should have their right to free speech
taken away! If you cant have that then what??! I use my freedom of speech daily and I enjoy it.

...to answer the detour question: should freedom of speech ever be limited?... my answer is - sometimes it is appropriate - such as, an ex-con
pedophile should not be allowed to publicly push for laws to legalize child rape - and - idiots are not allowed to yell "fire!" in a crowded venue -
and - it's illegal to publicly threaten to kill someone...

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
an ex-con pedophile should not be allowed to publicly push for laws to legalize child rape

While I think we can both agree that child rape is bad, I see no problem with someone pushing for laws to make it legal.

No call for such a law would ever be taken seriously, nor would it ever be passed, nor would any judge ever find it constitutional.

So, I don't think you have to worry about an x-convict pedophile swaying the public to support "pro baby rape."

On the same token, I don't think we should concern ourselves with the KKK burning crosses in their backyard, or putting up racist websites. It's
part of their right to free speech, and that's what makes America so great. There is a free exchange of ideas. Trying to stop that free exchange of
ideas amounts to the government regulating opinions, which is a very bad idea.

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
an ex-con pedophile should not be allowed to publicly push for laws to legalize child rape

While I think we can both agree that child rape is bad, I see no problem with someone pushing for laws to make it legal.

...if they're an ex-con, i have a problem with it...

No call for such a law would ever be taken seriously,

...NAMBLA is taken seriously by many people and some with the power to finance lobbying... the legalizing of statutory rape is precisely what NAMBLA
is pushing for... i support their right to voice their opinions and even lobby for law changes - but - not if they're ex-cons...

nor would it ever be passed, nor would any judge ever find it constitutional.

So, I don't think you have to worry about an x-convict pedophile swaying the public to support "pro baby rape."

On the same token, I don't think we should concern ourselves with the KKK burning crosses in their backyard, or putting up racist websites. It's
part of their right to free speech, and that's what makes America so great. There is a free exchange of ideas. Trying to stop that free exchange of
ideas amounts to the government regulating opinions, which is a very bad idea.

...wow, give you an inch and you'll take twenty miles, lol... the issue is - should people convicted of a crime have their freedom of speech
limited... none of your examples are relevant...

It matters not one hair what the Judge says, it matters whether you are yourself prepared to deal with the consequences of exercising your inalienable
rights.

The only one who can alienate your rights is you.

You don't get freedom for free. I don't care what the Bill of Rights says, they are merely privelages being extended to people who don't understand
they only become inalienable when you won't give them up even under threat of imprisonment, loss of limb or life, just like our forefathers had
too.

You either want to be a slave or you want to be free.

If you care what this Judge says you want to be a slave, and you want someone else to gaurantee your privelages which makes them a Master and you a
slave.

Use them or loose them. You only loose them when you abdicate them by letting others convince you not too because you are too much of a pansy and a
submissive to pay the price of using them, and to make others pay a price for trying to stop you from using them.

The Above Top Secret Web site is a wholly owned social content community of The Above Network, LLC.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.